Abstract:This article aims to reveal the characteristics and problems of current discourse concerning public reason through analyzing the relationship between justice and primary goods and their relationship with public reason. In modern society, a conception of justice is correlated to primary goods in two ways: firstly, the means of distribution of primary goods; secondly, the identification of items of primary goods. The conception of justice is not relevant to primary goods as a straightforward equivalency, because due to different desires, interests, and habits, different people will have different significance and judging criteria, Thus the conception of goods is not equivalent to liberties and rights, because it refers to various things that are considered good. These things are considered good not according to one unified criterion, but rather based on different criteria and interests. As with aesthetic judgments, there are quite different, even conflicting and contradicting judgments about goods. It is true that goods should include liberties and rights, and they certainly belong to the category of good things or matters. However, liberties and rights are political goods – although their utility also covers other domains – which are differentiated from goods of another nature such as health and beauty. The list of liberties and rights can also be very long, and people in different political communities will have different choices. In respect to its characteristic of being basic and fundamental, the norm of justice cannot include everything recognized as a liberty or a right in the items protected by the constitution. Thus it is necessary and inevitable, in theory and practice, to select those items which are the most fundamental and general based on the possibilities of practice and technology. These selected fundamental liberties and rights will be called basic liberties and rights. Primary goods seem here to be the same as basic liberties and rights – a signified of various signifiers. In some sense it is correct that both have something in common. But they are different in contents and range. The range of primary goods is larger than basic liberties and rights: Basic liberties and rights must belong to primary goods, but not all the items of primary goods are basic liberties and rights. For instance, in Rawls wealth and income together with basic liberties and rights are classified as primary goods. The propound of this conception of primary goods and the attention it has attracted shows that the conception of justice has been enlarged in modern society and that liberalism has been improving itself by absorbing other resources. Meanwhile, it has also

＂The Greatest Number＂ and ＂The Least Advantages＂ --The Ethical Foundation and Its Ambiguity for Two Perceptions o{ Justice

Advantageous Inequity Aversion Does Not Always Exist: the Role of Determining Allocations Modulates Preferences for Advantageous Inequity

Rethinking Liberty:On Sen's impossibility of a Paretian libertarian theorem

Impacts Of Social Comparison And Fairness Facet Preference On Justice Judgments

Nationalism, Egalitarianism and Global Justice

Theoretical Advantage of Utilitarianism and its Current Development

Maximin Justice, Sacrifice, and the Reciprocity Argument: A Pragmatic Reassessment of the Rawls/Nozick Debate

Discrimination on the Definition of Justice

The Ethics of Self-respect and Mutual Respect: From the Mutual Disinterest of Rawls

A note on redistributive fairness and economic reform

On General Morality Principle

An Evaluation of the Ultimate Principle of Morality by Ideal Experiments

Reducing Leximin Fairness to Utilitarian Optimization

Justice as a Social Bargain and Optimization Problem

Chinese Conceptions Of Justice And Reward Allocation

24 Justice, Primary Goods and Public Reason

The inversion paradox, and classification of fairness notions

Just Better Utilitarianism

Fairness As a Robust Utilitarianism

How to Justify Principles of Justice

Issues Concerning Rawls